Town Square

Palo Alto Airport gets ready to fly solo

Even as Palo Alto's airport risks losing $150,000 in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant money, one representative for the Palo Alto Airport Association said he is "cautiously optimistic" about the bustling airport's future.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
logged in.
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
click here
to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 27, 2013 at 9:43 am

Before all the anti airport jump in on this one, it is important to note that the airport serves businesses in and around Palo Alto. It is not and should not be thought of as a city airport, but as a regional resource. As such, there should be a lot of support to keep this airport in top notch condition to enable it to thrive. We should be thinking of ways to support the business with restaurant and other businesses catering to the needs of airport users. How about putting zip cars, bike rentals, etc. How about extending the shuttle to the airport. How about using some airport space for carpool parking.

Posted by DSFNA Grandma
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 27, 2013 at 10:51 am

Will the $150,000 to fix the runways come out of Palo Alto's pocket? So if the airport serves local businesses, why can't it assess, or at least ask, the businesses for contributions to fix the runways? Say 100 businesses pay $1500 each? Even if it's an asset, how many of the business users have actual Palo Alto addresses? I'm guessing that this is a lot like the golf course, where more than half the users are not Palo Alto residents.

Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 27, 2013 at 11:03 am

"How about using some airport space for carpool parking."

That's a great idea. It's high time that land stopped being a playground for the privileged and became a true community asset. There's lots of space that's being very inefficiently used to store airplanes, and that runway could probably accommodate several hundred cars.

Posted by neighbor
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Life Flights are helicopters going to Stanford, not small aircraft flying low into the Palo Alto airport at 1am. I support the airport, but do not support flights between 11pm and 6-7am -- we all deserve uninterrupted sleep.

And yes, there are SFO arrivals that "buzz" Palo Alto as well. Tracking flights on the website (don't remember the URL) show that patterns are changed sometimes because of weather, but other times for unknown reasons. There are a number of SFO-bound planes that hit below 5,000 feet right over Palo Alto. Those with noisy, whining engines are awful, especially when they seem to come one right after another throughout the evening.

The $150,000 is a federal grant that Palo Alto has been losing out on because the county decided to not allow someone to open a business at South County Airport even though it had a contractual obligation to the FAA to do so.

Posted by Chris C.
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 27, 2013 at 2:31 pm

Imposing an limit on night flights to an airport can be logistically hard -- think of how you might close a random road in Palo Alto during certain hours, and enforce that closure. Do you close it to all cars, or just folks who don't live there? Do you need to station police there to make sure nobody drives on it? How do you deal with lawsuits (justified or not) from people who think you impeded their freedom of movement?

One potential source of revenue for the airport -- hangar space. For years there has been a hangar shortage at the airport. The waiting list to get a hangar is huge. The rents being charged are 4-5 times higher than what airports outside the Bay Area can collect. I can tell you many more airplane owners would love to park their planes at Palo Alto if good hangars were available.

Posted by Chris C.
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 27, 2013 at 4:21 pm

@neighbor: You are right, but... the SFO and SJC restrictions don't stop all flights, just older (noisier) jet planes, which are not allowed into PAO already. Pretty much every plane that flies into PAO is allowed to land at SJC around the clock. Full details can be found here:

Posted by boscoli
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 28, 2013 at 11:18 am

Whatever one may think of the airport, please stop with the charade of 'a community asset'. The airport is not, nor ever been, such a thing. It is, and always will be, a playground for boys and girls refusing to grow up and caring not at all about those living near the airport. The travel needs of businessmen can be easily be satisfied by a number of airports in the area. This airport is literally across the fence from living and breathing humans who lack the financial means and political influence necessary to get rid of the airport. Can you imagine the residents of Woodside, Atherton or Los Altos Hills tolerating this airport in their midst for even one day?

Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 28, 2013 at 11:52 am

&gt;Whatever one may think of the airport, please stop with the charade of 'a community asset'.

It is a community asset, and it should become a better one, through appropriate development and planning. PAO has been blocked by the greenies for decades (e.g. no more hangers). It is time to liberate PAO, and plan to coordinate it with the re-designed golf course, new hotel developments (e.g. Mings), business park convenience and expansion, the education of school kids (and adults) about the thrill of flying, etc.

PAO is a major asset that Palo Alto should not lose. It should be exploited in order to increase our tax base, and to enhance our quality of life in PA.

Posted by boscoli
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 28, 2013 at 12:44 pm

@Craig Laughton, repeating a fallacy ("PAO is a community asset) ad nauseum doesn't make true. PAO is a white elephant nightmare, nothing more. Your vision seems to be of Palo Alto as traffic chocked industrial park, a nightmarish vision of those with the mentality of let's- build- and- pave-over-everything. Hopefully that nightmare will never materialize. Palo Alto has already been grossly, irresponsibly and scandalously overdeveloped.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2013 at 12:51 pm

Palo Alto Airport is an asset for the community of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Atherton, Woodside, Tesla, Facebook, Google and whoever else is prepared to do business. Commercial airports and commercial airlines are increasingly difficult for business travel particularly with business samples, booth materials, etc. which need to accompany many business travelers.

Just because some people in the Palo Alto community think it doesn't serve them, then they think they can deny the usefulness of the amenity to the surrounding business community.

Yes there may be some joy flights or hobbyists using it. But, I am convinced that the business uses far outweigh them. You might as well deny Stanford Shopping Center to out of towners with that mindset.

Posted by Boscoli
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 28, 2013 at 1:09 pm

We already have too much business here. Palo Alto is not an industrial park. Since when has business become the golden calf we all have to worship? zThe excessive traffic and density generate ever increasing need to service the and repair the infrastructure, while our quality of life keeps diminishing and our environment destroyed. Following the current trend we will resemble some of those dreadful industrial parks in San Fernando Valley in a few years. Palo Alto has been grossly overdevelopment so a few can get wealthy. Now is the time to put a stop to it and return this once wonderful time to its roots.

Posted by Jetman
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Nov 5, 2013 at 10:38 pm

If you think commercial aircraft noise over Palo Alto has increased in the last few months... you are correct. In August 2013 the South China Morning Post reported that the FAA, in response to the Asiana crash at SFO, had begun advising Foreign Airlines to stop using the 5,000’ visual approach to SFO, and to only fly 3,000' GPS final approach routes. These overseas flights, which typically use larger four engined craft, are the jets rattling your windows, and vibrating your walls.

The smaller craft that emit a high pitched whistle are flying a new approach to SFO known as "NextGen" which the FAA began to roll-out at Bay Area airports in January 2013. Under "NextGen", aircraft "coast" down from altitude at high speed along several precisely navigated approaches. If you live under one of the "NextGen" approach routes, you better get used to it. The precision navigation used in the "Nextgen" system will channel air traffic into several narrow flight paths, and allow air traffic control to use much smaller aircraft-to-aircraft spacing.

Under the prevailing westerly winds, there are five basic approach routes to SFO. Three of the five routes fly directly over Palo Alto. "NextGen" approach routes typically overlay existing conventional approach routes.

Complaining about airport noise? Did you not know there was an airport near your home when you bought your home? I learned to fly at Palo Alto 40 years ago. The airport and its noise was here before you were!

The city should lengthen the runway to 4000', close the bird sanctuary or move it as birds and airplanes can lead to disaster.

If Palo Alto is in the heart and soul of Silicon Valley, having an airport capable of handling small jets and other business type planes will help the whole economy.